Anyone else wishing the Austrian grand prix had never returned to the calendar? It's now one of my least favourite tracks, only really behind Abu Dhabi, and even that has the (undeserved) privilege of being the last race of the season which gives it some potential for championship significance. Austria is chronically dull.

Yeah, the 2012 European GP was a real surprise. Vettel's Red Bull conked out from the lead, Maldonado spearing Hamilton just before the end, Schumacher's last ever F1 podium, and Alonso's meteoric race from 11th to win in front of a home crowd.

It didn't help that hamilton received a grid penalty. After the Baku banger race I think a lot of people wanted to see Hamilton and Vettel go wheel to wheel, reliability issues should really be dealt with by punishing the team and not the driver. In other news, Silverstone is threatening to walk away from F1 if they don't get a better deal, perhaps unaware that Malaysia was allowed to go without much of a fight.

second_base wrote:You need to fuck off now...like right now dude.

Parv wrote:Edwin has been my least favourite forumite for a long time now.

I'm still in two minds about it. On the one hand, these sorts of devices seem to be a response to freak accidents that are unlikely to ever repeat. The other hand is obvious; we don't want people dying in motorsport.

Looking back at the last decade or so of open-wheel accidents, it certainly wouldn't have prevented every injury or death. - They've already said that it wouldn't have prevented Jules Bianchi's death (I'm guessing it's just not strong enough to stop the car entirely, so it would have crumpled or shattered). - Perhaps it would have saved Mario de Villota (Marussia test) from injury as her car was only moving at around 30mph when she crashed, although it would depend on the angle she hit the truck lift at. - It's unclear whether Justin Wilson (Indycar) would have been saved, as he was struck in the head by a large piece of another car's crash structure (ie: heavy and dense) coming from above him; I dare say it would have struck a Halo if fitted, but we don't know whether it would have stopped the debris completely. - Dan Weldon (Indycar) hit a crash fence pole twice while his car was airborne. It struck his head both times, and the second impact was fatal. Who knows whether the Halo could take a second strong impact, but if it could, then it likely would have saved him.- Felipe Massa was struck in the head by a 700g spring at 175mph. It hit him from off-centre, so could have made it underneath the Halo. If it had struck the Halo, would it have bounced off, or would it just have been deflected at another angle into Massa? Would it potentially have struck him more than once if it rebounded from his crash helmet into the Halo?- Henry Surtees (Formula 2) likely would have been saved; he was struck in the head by a detached wheel which was clearly too big to fit through the gaps in the Halo. I think this is the sort of accident Halo was created to prevent, and I remember there being a lot of discussion of enclosed cockpits around this time (Massa's accident was a week later).

The arguments against Halo are that it could potentially prevent a driver escaping quickly from a car, that it blocks part of a driver's view, and that it's simply ugly. - Honestly I'd be surprised if the first would be an issue; it's designed with that in mind, and I imagine it's simply a matter of driver training. - The second; drivers already have aerials and the like directly ahead of them, and I don't think that central column is thick enough to significantly hamper the driver's view straight ahead, and it won't have an effect in corners. - The third? Yes, it is ugly. So were the step noses, and the dildo noses, and the stupid little aero attachments banned after 2008, and the wide front/narrow rear wings in 2009, and the shark fins, and the T-wings, and this year's Haas livery... we get used to ugliness in this sport. The Halo may look a little better if coloured to match the car, but I suspect it'll be black on most cars so that it doesn't stand out. My understanding is that it'll be an FIA provided part, so won't be redesigned to look a little better by the teams.

I think I'd prefer to have the Halo in F1 more than the headlines of "why was Halo not implemented?" headlines that we'd get if another accident that it could have prevented occurs. I know the element of risk is part of what makes motorsport so thrilling, but so long as the system works correctly and is *properly* tested (and by that I mean have a car upside down half-buried in a gravel trap to make sure the driver can still get out quickly), then I think we need to have it, at least until something better comes along.

All good points there. I think I reluctantly also conclude that's it's ugly as hell but necessary until bettered. Motorsport will always be dangerous, but it's hard to over-estimate how many lives have been saved and serious injuries prevented by the various safety measures developed over the last few decades. The only difference is that this one is a complete eye-sore. If it doesn't affect the driving and it makes the sport safer, I don't see how I can honestly complain about it.

Looks like Red Bull might be screwed after next season. Renault have said they no longer want to supply them with an engine after next season so they will have to use Honda engines. Renault will be supplying McLaren for the next three years and it appears that that is enough to get Alonso to sign up to a new contract. Torro Rosso will be using Honda engines from next year. I think it was necessary for someone to use Honda engines next year if McLaren were going to be able to drop them as a supplier as the FIA wanted them to stay in F1.

I'm not sure why anyone would *want* Honda engines unless they're being paid (not given free engines, actually being paid) to use them. What's the point of spending such vast quantities of money on running an F1 team if your car breaks down every time you go racing.

Having one more points finish than Did Not Starts? That's beyond a joke. Alonso has finished three races this year (three more where he retired late enough to be classified in the results). The irritating thing is that all of the pundits say that the car is a good one, it's just all let down by the power unit. It can probably corner as well as the Ferrari can, but it's all for nothing when you're so slow you can't defend on the straights.

Was listening to this on 5-live earlier. Not totally surprised. After all, red bull did originally drop Renault previously (without securing an engine deal), and had too go back, cap in hand when Mercedes wouldn't supply them with engines. So unless Honda pull something remarkable out of the fire, I can see the red bull guy pull the team out. He threatened that once before, when Mercedes started winning.

In the F1 business its dog eat dog. McLaren get the engine and red bull lose it.

McLaren are still going to lose out, Renault are trying to build up their factory team again so they won't be giving upgrades to a customer team that is beating them. Apparently Honda was spending nearly $100 million a year this year, I'm sure Red Bull will be happy to drive around at the back if it isn't going to cost them anything, they were a back-marker team for a long time.

second_base wrote:You need to fuck off now...like right now dude.

Parv wrote:Edwin has been my least favourite forumite for a long time now.